Wille he not go away

Pot Noodle =

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/odea-hoping-for-cabinet-return-if-cleared-by-probe-2161044.html

My God Brass neck or what

anymore

Pot wrote:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/odea-hoping-for-cabinet-return-if-cleared-by-probe-2161044.html

My God Brass neck or what

Unfortunately it is more than possible that he will indeed reurn to cabinet in some future FF administration - look how Ahern brought Beverly Cooper Flynn back into the fold and ensured that RTE licence payers picked up the tab for much of the legal expenses for her ffailed attempt to sue RTE over its program on her activies.

Pot Noodle =

Thats if they get back in again

anymore

Pot wrote:

Thats if they get back in again

Kenny will probably serve as a one term taoiseach after which FF will be back in some kind of coalition.

expectationlost

thank you to the green party for voting for him

tim_holsters

What a nauseating pompous little man W O'Dea is, these self serving FF cretins still don't get it.

Pot Noodle =

Is that his Mustache his eyebrows coming down for a drink

Seth Brundle

Sure all he did was perjure himself. Its only a small thing that shouldn't interfere with him being a legislator or being a barrister.

jonsnow

What an arrogant jerk.Just as the whole perjury was being forgotten about as we deal with the scandal of the week.He was about to slither into the shadows for a few years but couldn,t keep his big mouth shut.Hows the Garda investigation into his alleged:rolleyes: perjury proceeding!!!.Someone should put paul williams on an exclusive investigation into how its progressing

hallelujajordan

"At the end of the day, if it emerges as a result of the inquiry that is being carried on that I did nothing wrong, I'd have every prospect of returning I would suspect, and I would be working very hard in that direction."

Why would anyone have a problem with that statement . . Surely if it emerges that he did nothing wrong he would have every right to go back into cabinet . .

kbannon wrote:

Sure all he did was perjure himself. Its only a small thing that shouldn't interfere with him being a legislator or being a barrister.

This has been debated at length on here and I have no desire to go back into the details but in the interest of accuracy . .
- He wasn't charged or convicted of perjury
- He didn't commit perjury.

paddyland

hallelujajordan wrote: »

"At the end of the day, if it emerges as a result of the inquiry that is being carried on that I did nothing wrong, I'd have every prospect of returning I would suspect, and I would be working very hard in that direction."

Why would anyone have a problem with that statement . . Surely if it emerges that he did nothing wrong he would have every right to go back into cabinet . .



This has been debated at length on here and I have no desire to go back into the details but in the interest of accuracy . .
- He wasn't charged or convicted of perjury
- He didn't commit perjury.

Regardless of whether he was 'convicted,' he behaved absolutely reprehensively, from the day he tried to accuse a political opponent of operating a brothel, to his squawking in court, and his total disrespect for the Dáil. The man is an appalling example of a public representative. We really need better than that in these critical times.

I could allow that someone argues the Fianna Fáil case to get the country back to rights, but when they persist in defending indefensible cretins like O'Dea, then their whole credibility comes into question, and their argument is scuttled. If you really believe in FF, you should be talking up the next generation, not defending these timeworn bandits.

You might as well tell us Bertie Ahern was never 'convicted' of anything. I would be very careful about defending THAT particular waster, if you want to retain any shred of credibility for your arguments.

JonathanAnon

I think Willie was right to resign (albeit, at the "encouragement" of the Greens), but it was hardly the worst thing that has ever been done by a politician. I'm sure every FF TD has said something similarly derogatory about the shinners at some stage, but had the good sense not to say it to a reporter.

hallelujajordan

paddyland wrote: »

Regardless of whether he was 'convicted,' he behaved absolutely reprehensively, from the day he tried to accuse a political opponent of operating a brothel, to his squawking in court, and his total disrespect for the Dáil. The man is an appalling example of a public representative. We really need better than that in these critical times.

I could allow that someone argues the Fianna Fáil case to get the country back to rights, but when they persist in defending indefensible cretins like O'Dea, then their whole credibility comes into question, and their argument is scuttled. If you really believe in FF, you should be talking up the next generation, not defending these timeworn bandits.

You might as well tell us Bertie Ahern was never 'convicted' of anything. I would be very careful about defending THAT particular waster, if you want to retain any shred of credibility for your arguments.

Not defending Willie O'Dea . . just trying to make sure the record is accurate. . He didn't commit perjury and if is shown that he has done nothing wrong he would have every right to campaign for a return for cabinet. . whether or not I, as a FF member would support such a return is a whole different issue . .

And please, don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do

paddyland

Willie O'Dea is definitely not serving FF right now by jumping up and down and waving his arms, he is purely serving himself. A true mark of the man, and for their own future good, FF should move quietly on from these losers as they fall, and let them go, instead of defending them. The best thing FF can do now is ignore him.

UltimateMale

tim_holsters wrote: »

What a nauseating pompous little man W O'Dea is, these self serving FF cretins still don't get it.

Sure isn't it bigger cretins that vote them in :rolleyes:

raindog.promo

Is it illegal to defame someone running for office?

If it is, then he did something as opposed to nothing wrong.


Also, if he resigned, then the government is under no obligation to take him back whatever the results of the investigation?

johngalway

Pot wrote:

My God Brass neck or what

Just checking but, you do realise he's in Fianna Fail, right?

hallelujajordan

raindog.promo wrote: »

Is it illegal to defame someone running for office?

If it is, then he did something as opposed to nothing wrong.


Also, if he resigned, then the government is under no obligation to take him back whatever the results of the investigation?

Who did he defame and when was his conviction . . . ?
Who said the government have any obligation ?

And no, I'm not defending Willie O'Dea and I don't support his return to government but this thread is a waste of web-space. All Willie O'Dea has said is that if the Garda investigation proves that he did nothing wrong then he should be entitled to seek a cabinet position again . . a perfectly reasonable position to take and if the mob could park the politicking for a second they would see that.

Dob74

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Who did he defame and when was his conviction . . . ?
Who said the government have any obligation ?

And no, I'm not defending Willie O'Dea and I don't support his return to government but this thread is a waste of web-space. All Willie O'Dea has said is that if the Garda investigation proves that he did nothing wrong then he should be entitled to seek a cabinet position again . . a perfectly reasonable position to take and if the mob could park the politicking for a second they would see that.

What O'Dea did is very serious. He lied on an affidavit to court.
And was caught redhanded. Only in this country would you get away with it.
Will the DPP in Limerick go after him? No way

Its incredible how stupid he was but this is Ireland and makin up cock & bull stories about SFein's is not deemed to be a crime. After all white collar crime in this country doesn't exsist:mad:

hallelujajordan

Dob74 wrote: »

What O'Dea did is very serious. He lied on an affidavit to court.
And was caught redhanded. Only in this country would you get away with it.
Will the DPP in Limerick go after him? No way

Its incredible how stupid he was but this is Ireland and makin up cock & bull stories about SFein's is not deemed to be a crime. After all white collar crime in this country doesn't exsist:mad:

What O'Dea did was a mistake, no doubt . . but to accuse him of perjury you would have to believe that a)he knew / remembered the comments he had made at the time he gave the interview and b) that he deliberately lied about it in his affidavit.

The journalist to whom the remarks are made has gone on record to say that he had put a microphone under Willie O'Dea's nose. There was nothing hidden . .

Therefore had O'Dea recalled the interview at the time he swore the affidavit he would also have remembered the recording and his lying would have been a ridiculous risk for a man in his position to take. His own story is far more credible. i.e. when he swore the affidavit he truthfully did not remember the interview. That is why the DPP has not charged him with perjury.

I presume O'Dea's latest comments about the Garda investigation is an indication that either the allegations about the Shinner were not made up or at least he didn't make them up.

Liam Byrne

"I had the unusual experience that the Dail actually voted confidence in me at 6pm on a Wednesday evening and within 24 hours I was nevertheless gone from office.

More half-truths.

His cronies in Government voted "confidence" in him; those without a vested interest didn't.

And - just like Ahern, who may not be found "guilty" of anything, what he did was wrong......it may not be illegal, but it was wrong, and he was exposed and should disappear gracefully.

Kiwi_knock

He was not found guilty so therefore he can expect to become a Minister again. What he did was morally wrong, but morals seem to have no place in politics. FF should not be looking to re-appoint him, no matter his repuatation before the scandal he has tarnished it and does not deserve to represent our country on a world wide stage. He should be happy that FF still associate with him. FF should distance themselves from these comments otherwise it will further affect their image.

watchingthepols

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I presume O'Dea's latest comments about the Garda investigation is an indication that either the allegations about the Shinner were not made up or at least he didn't make them up.

No.You are wrong about this. The issue of the Garda investigation into Willie O'Dea alleged perjury & Willie O'Dea's libel against the Shinner are two seperate matters.

Willie O'Dea has already admitted that the statements he made about the Shinner were false. He has apologised for this and paid damages for the libel. See the link to the RTE news website below. The RTE news report is titled "O'Dea apologises for defamatory statements"

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1221/odeaw.html

The Garda investigation is in relation to Willie O'Dea swearing a false affidavit to the high court. Willie has already admitted this. The investigation's purpose is to establish if this constitutes perjury.Perjury is very difficult to prove. To be honest, I'd be amazed if this investigation was allowed to go anywhere. Judging by O'Dea's recent comments I'd say that he has got the tip off that it has been sorted for him.

Skrynesaver

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And - just like Ahern, who may not be found "guilty" of anything, what he did was wrong......it may not be illegal, but it was wrong, and he was exposed and should disappear gracefully.

You have said a mouthful there, there is a rottenness at the core of Irish politics in general and FF in particular which fails to see that spreading malicious rumours about an electoral opponent is wrong.

The man was shown to be dishonest, to be willing to sink to the gutter and to act with no sense of personal dignity. Yet if he avoids prosecution (or limits it to a private settlement with undisclosed terms) he's clean enough for Cabinet politics.

How can anyone honestly stand over that position?

hallelujajordan

watchingthepols wrote: »

No.You are wrong about this. The issue of the Garda investigation into Willie O'Dea alleged perjury & Willie O'Dea's libel against the Shinner are two seperate matters.

Willie O'Dea has already admitted that the statements he made about the Shinner were false. He has apologised for this and paid damages for the libel. See the link to the RTE news website below. The RTE news report is titled "O'Dea apologises for defamatory statements"

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1221/odeaw.html

The Garda investigation is in relation to Willie O'Dea swearing a false affidavit to the high court. Willie has already admitted this. The investigation's purpose is to establish if this constitutes perjury.Perjury is very difficult to prove. To be honest, I'd be amazed if this investigation was allowed to go anywhere. Judging by O'Dea's recent comments I'd say that he has got the tip off that it has been sorted for him.

The scope of the investigation includes the source of the information that O'Dea alleges was a member of the Gardai. . .

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Willie-O39Dea-I-aim-to.6266118.jp

"Gardai are also investigating statements made in the Dail by Deputy O'Dea he received the false information from a member of the garda"

If it were shown through the current investigation that O'Dea was relaying information that had come from a Garda then that would change things significantly.

I agree that if the only outcome of the Garda investigation is that they are not going to charge O'Dea with perjury then it changes nothing . . I'ts obvious to anyone who understands what perjury is that they cannot charge him.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I agree that if the only outcome of the Garda investigation is that they are not going to charge O'Dea with perjury then it changes nothing . . I'ts obvious to anyone who understands what perjury is that they cannot charge him.

Interesting that you're focussing on the nit-picky legalities, rather than the overall concept of what is acceptable.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting that you're focussing on the nit-picky legalities, rather than the overall concept of what is acceptable.

The difference between O'Dea repeating something to a journalist that he had heard from a legitimate Garda source and making something up himself about a rival politician is not something I would describe as a nit-picky legality.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The difference between O'Dea repeating something to a journalist that he had heard from a legitimate Garda source and making something up himself about a rival politician is not something I would describe as a nit-picky legality.

Interesting.....y'see, no-one suggested that he "made it up"......but the story - if there was one - was related to the "rival politican's" brother, not the rival themselves. Plus O'Dea denying he ever said it until he knew that the tape still existed....

Not only that, but did you hear the way he introduced it to the conversation, with a sneaky, sneering intonation ?

Even if he did "just" pass on info, what he did was wrong, denying it was wrong, and seeing nothing wrong with passing it on in the way that he did - and acting like he's a "victim" - is wrong.

Finally, I find it curious that you are so ready to give O'Dea the benefit of the doubt in relation to what he did, while defending his right to pass on unsubstantiated information about what others did (or did not) do ?

Legalities and perjury aside, O'Dea blatantly implies "XXXX runs a brothel", and you defend it, and give out about other people not defending his right to say this......on the basis that it was from a legitimate source.

You have also previously complained about people having an opinion on Ahern's stance, saying that any opinion is irrelevant until the tribunal has its findings.

Why are you not defending the injured party's right to his good name until due process proves that he was (or wasn't) running a brothel ? Why are you OK with O'Dea passing this information and conjecture in a nod/wink manner on to a journalist ?

If I said to a journalist, "you'll have to look into Ahern's finances - they're dodgy as f**k", would you complain that due process hadn't been followed ?

O'Dea had to pay damages and apologise.....do you seriously think this isn't wrong behaviour ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting.....y'see, no-one suggested that he "made it up"......but the story - if there was one - was related to the "rival politican's" brother, not the rival themselves. Plus O'Dea denying he ever said it until he knew that the tape still existed....

The fact that the tape existed and that the journalist admitted to putting the recorder "under O'Dea's nose" is the very reason that I believe O'Dea genuinely did not remember the conversation when he signed the affidavit. If he did then he would have remembered the recording and he would certainly not have been foolish enough to sign an affidavit in this manner.

Not only that, but did you hear the way he introduced it to the conversation, with a sneaky, sneering intonation ?

Yes, I did and I didn't like it . . I thought he let himself down in a huge way.

Finally, I find it curious that you are so ready to give O'Dea the benefit of the doubt in relation to what he did, while defending his right to pass on unsubstantiated information about what others did (or did not) do ?

I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying that I accept his position that if a Garda investigation shows that he has done no wrong, then he has every right to campaign for a cabinet position again. I have also made it clear that I personally would not support his return to cabinet.

You have also previously complained about people having an opinion on Ahern's stance, saying that any opinion is irrelevant until the tribunal has its findings.

I don't complain about you or anyone else having an opinion, you are entitled to it . . as I am to mine. .

Why are you not defending the injured party's right to his good name until due process proves that he was (or wasn't) running a brothel ? Why are you OK with O'Dea passing this information and conjecture in a nod/wink manner on to a journalist ?

Jaysus, when have I said I'm OK with it . . . ?? Was O'Dea's comment acceptable . . No, it probably wasn't ! Was Emmet Staggs behaviour towards Paul Gogarty in DE acceptable . . No; Was it acceptable for Gilmore to accuse BC of treason . . absolutely not. .

I've said that I supported O'Dea's resignation and that I do not support his campaign to return to cabinet but it's not unreasonable to support his right to campaign if the Garda investigation shows he did nothing wrong . .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm saying that I accept his position that if a Garda investigation shows that he has done no wrong, then he has every right to campaign for a cabinet position again.

.....and my point is that NO Garda investigation can show this.

Regardless of the legalities, he did wrong. And his behaviour is 100% unacceptable.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I've said that I supported O'Dea's resignation and that I do not support his campaign to return to cabinet but it's not unreasonable to support his right to campaign if the Garda investigation shows he did nothing wrong . .

I accept that, up to a point, but my point is that - IMHO - anyone who wasn't some way in favour / defending him would phrase that as ".......shows he did nothing illegal".

And it reflects badly on FF that something has to be explicitly illegal in order for them to actually come out and admit it and take action......they voted confidence on O'Dea......the same applied to O'Donoghue and Ahern; they did wrong, but because it wasn't illegal, it wasn't condemned or even frowned upon. The same applied to the bank bonuses and payoffs and pay rises, but it wasn't illegal so therefore they washed their hands of them.

THAT mentality is what we need to weed out of politics in Ireland, and people claiming that "if the Gardai find that he's done nothing 'wrong', then nothing there's nothing 'wrong' " are part of the problem.

Skrynesaver

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Was it acceptable for Gilmore to accuse BC of treason . . absolutely not. .

Way off topic, but he accused Cowen of financial treason, and it's hard to disagree when Cowen oversaw a DoF that ignored the crimes that were committed by assorted individuals during the second stage of the boom, the stage where we grew by selling overpriced property to each other and acting as an offshore haven as opposed to the earlier bit where we were actually growing our national product.

Einhard

What's the bets he'll comfortably top the poll in the next election? Typical of the Irish electorate, bitch and moan about the political system and then do absolutely nothing about it when given the chance.

Pot Noodle =

Einhard wrote: »

What's the bets he'll comfortably top the poll in the next election? Typical of the Irish electorate, bitch and moan about the political system and then do absolutely nothing about it when given the chance.

I hope that we have all learned from this Crisis Cronyism has to stop end off

sceptre

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The fact that the tape existed and that the journalist admitted to putting the recorder "under O'Dea's nose" is the very reason that I believe O'Dea genuinely did not remember the conversation when he signed the affidavit.

Three things.

Firstly, it's just as well he was recording it. If he'd been taking notes instead, it would have been Willie O'Dea's word against his when O'Dea purportedly didn't remember the conversation. O'Dea could have stood over his attitude of "didn't say it, can't prove it, go screw yourself". Mike Dwane has said in print that he was very relieved / thought it was lucky that he recorded it considering what happened later. Alan English (Limerick Leader editor) has said in public that he was very relieved / thought it was lucky that Dwane recorded it considering what happened later (I don't have a recording but I was there when he said it). The recording was made on March 9 2009. The story appeared in the Limerick Chronicle on March 10.

Secondly, O'Dea specifically said in his affidavit: "I most categorically and emphatically deny that I said to Mr Dwane that the plaintiff was the owner of the said apartment." That affidavit was lodged on April 14. I could at this point build a house on Willie being one of the chief culprits himself in spreading the story about town that Quinlivan was caught running a brothel. But I didn't personally hear O'Dea saying it and I don't have a recording of him saying it about town, I just know two people who separately heard him saying it. I trust what they heard but it isn't first hand so I'm going to ignore it. The point of this paragraph is that O'Dea never contacted either Dwane or the Leader office to ask if there was a recording or if he could hear it if there was. He just assumed he'd get away with it. Or, there's (presumably) your view, that he'd forgotten what he'd said. Quinlivan had the cop-on to ask though, his solicitors sent a letter to the Limerick Leader on April 20 requesting that the recording be held safely.

Thirdly, O'Dea was later quite particular (rather later) in saying that he had been aware that there had been a recording made of the original interview. Considering that Mike Dwane clearly said that he made the recording by holding the recording at arm's length and under O'Dea's nose it would have been hard of O'Dea to have missed it. Still, he decided to make and sign an affadavit on April 14, well aware of the content of the Limerick Chronicle story on March 10, without phoning the guy in question and asking what precisely he said in the interview. Making a categorical and emphatic denial at that. The original article didn't include the direct Willie O'Dea quote about him definitively saying that it was a brothel that Quinlivan and his brother were running. It was mentioned in the opening paragraph though. At best Willie didn't phone to check, at worst he didn't give a brass monkey and assumed he'd get away with it.

There are a number of options here as a result.

One or more of:

Willie O'Dea is an idiot.
Willie O'Dea is a liar.
Willie O'Dea really is a forgetful sausage who by his own admission remembered there was a recording, couldn't remember what he said but presumably didn't think to ask what was on it. Which bring us back to the "idiot" option unfortunately.

Perjury in Irish law is not a strict liability offence. One has to prove wilful intent to earn a conviction. It's part of the reason there have been so few convictions (or cases brought) for perjury in Ireland. But I stand over the options above with the reasoning I've provided: he's an idiot and/or a liar. Given that he's gone on the record lately as saying "I'm still trying to figure it out myself quite frankly, you know", I've made my mind up about which of those three options I'm going for.

Willie's interpreting "wrong" as "court conviction in a criminal case". He's interpreting "nothing wrong" as "no court conviction in a criminal case". On that basis, he's almost the poster boy for what's wrong with politics in this country. We don't particularly need poster boys for either lying or idiocy (or both) at the cabinet table any time soon. Fianna Fail would do themselves a significant favour and the country as well by distancing themselves firmly from this kind of thing and O'Dea would be a pretty good place to start with behaviour like this. Is it reasonable to support his "right to campaign" for a cabinet post with that in mind? Oh guys, just when did presumably well-read people in this country lose the plot so seriously to even countenance such a notion...

Of course, me being me, I have another option to add to the above list. I'll introduce it in a few posts if the topic survives. It's undoubtedly worse than the above options though.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And it reflects badly on FF that something has to be explicitly illegal in order for them to actually come out and admit it and take action......they voted confidence on O'Dea......the same applied to O'Donoghue and Ahern; they did wrong, but because it wasn't illegal, it wasn't condemned or even frowned upon. The same applied to the bank bonuses and payoffs and pay rises, but it wasn't illegal so therefore they washed their hands of them.

THAT mentality is what we need to weed out of politics in Ireland, and people claiming that "if the Gardai find that he's done nothing 'wrong', then nothing there's nothing 'wrong' " are part of the problem.

Well, to be fair . . they expressed confidence in his ability to continue as a minister . . they didn't say that he "did nothing wrong". It is possible to consider that he might have made mistakes or behaved inappropriately but still have confidence in the work he is doing as a minister.

There is a mis-perception here that anyone who supports Fianna Fail automatically supports everything they say and do. As I have indicated many times on here, I have lots of issues with FF as I have with every other political party but I am able to reconcile those differences and continue to support the party while working to change from within.

hallelujajordan

sceptre wrote: »

One or more of:

Willie O'Dea is an idiot.
Willie O'Dea is a liar.
Willie O'Dea really is a forgetful sausage who by his own admission remembered there was a recording, couldn't remember what he said but presumably didn't think to ask what was on it. Which bring us back to the "idiot" option unfortunately.

Perjury in Irish law is not a strict liability offence. One has to prove wilful intent to earn a conviction. It's part of the reason there have been so few convictions (or cases brought) for perjury in Ireland. But I stand over the options above with the reasoning I've provided: he's an idiot and/or a liar. Given that he's gone on the record lately as saying "I'm still trying to figure it out myself quite frankly, you know", I've made my mind up about which of those three options I'm going for.

Willie's interpreting "wrong" as "court conviction in a criminal case". He's interpreting "nothing wrong" as "no court conviction in a criminal case". On that basis, he's almost the poster boy for what's wrong with politics in this country. We don't particularly need poster boys for either lying or idiocy (or both) at the cabinet table any time soon. Fianna Fail would do themselves a significant favour and the country as well by distancing themselves firmly from this kind of thing and O'Dea would be a pretty good place to start with behaviour like this. Is it reasonable to support his "right to campaign" for a cabinet post with that in mind? Oh guys, just when did presumably well-read people in this country lose the plot so seriously to even countenance such a notion...

Of course, me being me, I have another option to add to the above list. I'll introduce it in a few posts if the topic survives. It's undoubtedly worse than the above options though.

And I would probably accept the position that he is an idiot who a)behaved inappropriately and b)made some very foolish mistakes. However, in the interest of fairness if it can be shown that he 'did nothing wrong' the he has every right to campaign for a cabinet position again. And I would happily afford him that right even though I personally would not support his reinstatement.

I think its also important to define what he means as 'done nothing wrong' . . . the question is not around whether or not he will be accused / charged with perjury . . he certainly won't. . For me, I would consider his crime to be far less if it transpires that there is a reliable and verifiable source behind his allegations (i.e. a Garda). . . In such a case I would be much more willing to forgive his inappropriateness . . .

paddyland

Worst case scenario for FF: - All these liars and idiots get dragged through the media, horsewhipped out of office, humiliate their own party, lose all their pensions and entitlements, and be scapegoats to shame.

Best case scenario for FF: - All these liars and idiots quietly retire on full pension, keep their own mouths shut, and hopefully are forgotten by the public at large with their 'short memories.'

It really behoves the positive element of FF (if such a thing were imaginable) to let these people go, and stop at worst continually defending them, or at best trying to put very woolly cases that they have done no wrong.

Personally I am delighted to see FF constantly defending these people and regurgitating all this stuff, because it proves a point about that whole party, and their mindset of absolute entitlement, without any of the responsibilities.

paddyland

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It is possible to consider that he might have made mistakes or behaved inappropriately but still have confidence in the work he is doing as a minister.

Here lies the contradiction. FF is FULL of ministers who acted, not only inappropriately, but appallingly, and we are castigated for not still giving them due confidence in the work they do as ministers?

I am laughing out loud now. The 'work they do as ministers' is plain for all to see today, in our multi-multi billion euro deficit. Yes, thanks for that FF, good work.

Stop digging.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I think its also important to define what he means as 'done nothing wrong'

No, it's not.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

For me, I would consider his crime to be far less if it transpires that there is a reliable and verifiable source behind his allegations (i.e. a Garda). . . In such a case I would be much more willing to forgive his inappropriateness . . .

Why ? If you were accused of something and a Garda investigating the allegation it happened to mention it to a high-level minister (maybe off-the-record, or maybe in the course of his duties, or whatever) , and that minister said it to a reporter with a tape-recorder, who would you blame for "leaking" the story ?

Considering there was a settlement made to Quinlivan, you cannot say that O'Dea "didn't do wrong", and that applies regardless of the perjury claim.

As I said before, if someone made a similar claim about Ahern, you would be screaming that due process wasn't followed, and that someone was entitled not to be convicted until the investigation was complete, and I suspect you would be demanding that they resign.....am I right ?

Perjury - if it is that - would reflect on his inability as a TD, because he doesn't respect the law; but I'm sick to death of FF hiding behind the technicalities of "the law" when it comes to acknowledging what they "did wrong".

Another example:

"There was no intention on my part to damage or destabilise the Government," he said. He added that he has said things in the past "that I didn't really mean in the heat of the moment".

Source : http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Limerick-TD-Willie-O39Dea-resigns.6086901.jp

It's more double-speak; getting the "no intention" phrase in there while the target of that phrase does nothing to reveal what his actual intention was.

It might have been a "mistake", but based on what criteria ? Because it damaged his career ? Because he was caught out ?

Or because it was wrong ?

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Who did he defame and when was his conviction . . . ?
Who said the government have any obligation ?

And no, I'm not defending Willie O'Dea and I don't support his return to government but this thread is a waste of web-space. All Willie O'Dea has said is that if the Garda investigation proves that he did nothing wrong then he should be entitled to seek a cabinet position again . . a perfectly reasonable position to take and if the mob could park the politicking for a second they would see that.

Like a typical FF apologist you define wrong strictly in terms of a legal/illegal dichotomy. You leave no space for moral or ethical rights and wrongs, because if you did you'd have to admit that despite what any court may rule Willie O'Dea lacks the ethical standard expected of a public representative, as does Bertie (another man of which you love to cry 'innocent til proven guilty'). And your FF as a whole lacks the moral authority (and wherewithall) to lead this country.

the_syco

paddyland wrote: »

Willie O'Dea is definitely not serving FF right now by jumping up and down and waving his arms, he is purely serving himself. A true mark of the man, and for their own future good, FF should move quietly on from these losers as they fall, and let them go, instead of defending them. The best thing FF can do now is ignore him.

WO'D never seemed to care what anyone thought of him, so can't see him changing all that much...

golfball37

I'd rather Willie gave an answer to the original question which seems to be lost in all this?

Why [at the taxpayers expense] was he writing to local people in Limerick offering to assist them in the planning process? Why was he employing 2 people on our bean to do his constituency work? When the Shinnier asked this he got the infamous brothel reply.

Unless Willie answers the original question he shouldn't be let near cabinet again imo.

His character assassisination of Senator Regans brother went beyond politics too, again he avoided answering a difficult question posed by the FG senator. Anyone who defends this type of politics really is a cretin.

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

Like a typical FF apologist you define wrong strictly in terms of a legal/illegal dichotomy. You leave no space for moral or ethical rights and wrongs, because if you did you'd have to admit that despite what any court may rule Willie O'Dea lacks the ethical standard expected of a public representative, as does Bertie (another man of which you love to cry 'innocent til proven guilty'). And your FF as a whole lacks the moral authority (and wherewithall) to lead this country.

No I don't define wrong strictly in terms of legal/illegal . . I'm struggling with this debate because regardless of the position I take you all hear what you want to hear . .

You are taking the view that I am of the opinion that WOD did nothing wrong . . NOT TRUE. I think he was wrong, I think he was stupid and earlier agreed with another poster who described him as an idiot.

All I am doing is respecting his right to campaign for a cabinet position if an investigation by the Gardai reveals other circumstances that might lead me to believe that he has done nothing wrong. .

You seem to have a difficulty with me having an open mind about an ongoing Garda investigation

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

No I don't define wrong strictly in terms of legal/illegal . . I'm struggling with this debate because regardless of the position I take you all hear what you want to hear . .

You are taking the view that I am of the opinion that WOD did nothing wrong . . NOT TRUE. I think he was wrong, I think he was stupid and earlier agreed with another poster who described him as an idiot.

All I am doing is respecting his right to campaign for a cabinet position if an investigation by the Gardai reveals other circumstances that might lead me to believe that he has done nothing wrong. .

You seem to have a difficulty with me having an open mind about an ongoing Garda investigation

Thats just confusing. He has either done something wrong (legality aside) or not. And he has done something wrong. We should discourage candidates of low moral/ethical standing from campaigning for cabinet positions, not championing their 'right' to do so.

I may at a push respect his right, but I'll not respect him for exercising that right.

And yes I do have difficulty with you having an open mind about an ongoing Garda investigation because that investigation is superfluous to determining whether he did wrong or not (unless of course you define wrong strictly in terms of legal/illegal which you claim you do not).

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You are taking the view that I am of the opinion that WOD did nothing wrong . . NOT TRUE. I think he was wrong, I think he was stupid and earlier agreed with another poster who described him as an idiot.

All I am doing is respecting his right to campaign for a cabinet position if an investigation by the Gardai reveals other circumstances that might lead me to believe that he has done nothing wrong. .

Care to square that circle ?

I can't speak for others, but the fact that you "believe he was wrong" and then rely on the Garda investigation to determine whether "he did anything wrong" is confusing (at best) and possibly even FF-style double-speak.

Independent of any legalities and Garda investigation, do you think he was wrong ?

And in what circumstances could what he did be seen as right "not wrong" ?

EDIT : Laminations beat me to it, almost word-for-word.

Laminations

Beat you to it Liam

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Independent of any legalities and Garda investigation, do you think he was wrong ?

Thats the nub of it. Its similarly difficult to get certain people to say Bertie did wrong without them delegating to the tribunal to tell them what to think.

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Beat you to it Liam

Thats the nub of it. Its similarly difficult to get certain people to say Bertie did wrong without them delegating to the tribunal to tell them what to think.

That's a whole other kettle of fish because the caveat "within the tribunal's terms of reference" could yet let that weasel and his supporters claim "innocence".

Laminations

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's a whole other kettle of fish because the caveat "within the tribunal's terms of reference" could yet let that weasel and his supporters claim "innocence".

Not at all. Regardless of the tribunal findings, Berties behaviour at the tribunal with his numerous and conflicting accounts of monies lodged, and his fanciful waffles that showed his disdain for the people (He won the money on the horses) adequately display his unsuitability for office. I dont need to wait for the tribunal to tell me that.

EDIT: And his claiming for a tax exemption on his buke while the country struggles to balance the books shows his true colours. Like Willie, this may have been his right but he is a p**** for applying

Joey the lips

I said the same about Michael Lowry... If his voters love him who are we to judge limerick.

Liam Byrne

Laminations wrote: »

Not at all. Regardless of the tribunal findings, Berties behaviour at the tribunal with his numerous and conflicting accounts of monies lodged, and his fanciful waffles that showed his disdain for the people (He won the money on the horses) adequately display his unsuitability for office. I dont need to wait for the tribunal to tell me that.

I agree 100%; I'm just saying that FF will wheel out the same "not illegal" bull in defence (even though in the tribunal's case it's a VERY specific charge).

Joey the lips wrote: »

I said the same about Michael Lowry... If his voters love him who are we to judge limerick.

PLEASE don't tar us all with the same brush; some of us do have ethics, morals and high standards.

Joey the lips

Liam Byrne wrote: »

PLEASE don't tar us all with the same brush; some of us do have ethics, morals and high standards.

That explains why michael lowry got back into power and why it took so long to kick him out of fine gael but it does not imply that limerick people are not happy with Willie o dea. I have no love but I have respect for the electorate.